Attachment 06 Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors.pdf

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (NOV 2021)

1. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) Technical Capability

(2) Past Performance

(3) Price

Technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

2. Ordering periods. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all ordering periods to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the ordering period prices are significantly unbalanced.

3. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

a. This is a competitive Subjective Tradeoff Technically Acceptable (STOTA) best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12, 13, and 15, Department of Defense (DoD) FAR Supplement Procedures, Guidance and Information Subpart 215.3, and Department of the Air Force FAR Supplement (DAFFARS) Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5315.3 in which competing offerors’ combined past performance information and technical “acceptability” will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than, price. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The Government intends to award one contract. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who in the Government’s estimation, provides the best overall value in response to the solicitation. All such offers shall be treated equally except for their technical capability, prices and performance records. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

Evaluation Process:

i. Initially responsive offers will be evaluated on price for realism and reasonableness. Offers not considered realistic or reasonable will not be eligible for further review and award.

ii. Remaining offers shall be considered for technical capability in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in Technical Capability.

iii. All technically acceptable offers will then receive a performance confidence assessment in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in paragraph 2(a)(1).

iv. The contracting officer will then conduct an integrated assessment and tradeoff between price and past performance for all technically acceptable offerors. The CO may award to a higher-priced offeror if it is determined that the technical and/or past performance superiority of that offeror justifies the additional price.

Conversely, an award may be made to a lower-priced offeror if the CO determines that a higher rating for other factors is not worth the price premium.

The award will be made to the offeror whose offer is determined to provide the best overall value to the Government.

v. Contractor Responsibility and Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Offerors are advised that, in accordance with FAR Part 9, the Government will make a determination of contractor responsibility prior to contract award. The Government may review information available in the System for Award Management (SAM), the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and other sources to aid in this determination.

For Other Than Small Business (Large Business) Offerors: In accordance with FAR 19.702, an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan is a prerequisite for award. The following instructions apply:

Offerors shall submit a complete, formal subcontracting plan with their initial offers. The plan itself is not an evaluation factor. The apparent successful offeror will be notified by the Contracting Officer after the best-value tradeoff decision. Failure to negotiate a subcontracting plan that is acceptable to the Contracting Officer in a timely manner will result in the offeror being determined nonresponsible and ineligible for award. For planning purposes, the Government’s minimum subcontracting targets for this acquisition are provided in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Contractor Responsibility para d.

b. Offerors must include prices for CLINs in Attachment 02, price Schedule, as well as transcribe appropriate total CLIN prices on the SF 1449 of the solicitation for the basic period and all ordering periods. Failure to do so may be considered by the Government as non-responsive and cause for rejection of the entire offer.

c. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

d. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the FAR addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their offers or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for offers revision.

Evaluation Factors for Award

Three evaluation factors will be used to evaluate offers: Price, Technical Capability, and Past Performance, with Technical and past performance, when combined being significantly more important than price.

Price

a. The Government will evaluate prices using the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) method. The TEP will include the sum of prices for CLINs 0001-4006.

b. All extensions of the unit prices shown will be subject to verification by the government. In case of variation between the unit price and the extension, the unit prices will be considered to be the offer.

c. Offerors are required to submit offers on all items listed in Attachment 02, Price

Schedule, as well as transcribe appropriate total CLIN prices on the SF 1449 of the solicitation for the basic period and all other ordering periods. Any offer, which appears to be unbalanced, may be rejected.

i. An offer is mathematically unbalanced if prices in the offer are significantly less than prices for some contract line items and significantly overstated in relationship to price for others.

ii. An offer is materially unbalanced if it is mathematically unbalanced, and if:

despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated or The offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advance payment.

d. Reasonableness. Price analysis will be used to determine if prices are too high.

e. Realism. Price analysis will be used to determine if prices are too low.

Technical Capability

a. An evaluation of technical acceptability of each offeror's technical capability offers shall be made. The basis for evaluation of technical capability offers is described below. At minimum, the technical capability offers shall consist of the following:

Factor 1: Grounds Maintenance and Management Plan

Sub Factor: Equipment Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates how the contractor will obtain and maintain all necessary equipment to fulfill PWS requirements (quantity/type of equipment). Indicate the number and size/capacity of equipment employed in each of the service areas outlined in key parts of paragraphs 1.1-1.7 of the PWS.

This requirement is met when the offeror’s offers clearly identifies all necessary equipment and identifies the size and/or capacity of said equipment to fulfill key areas of PWS Section 1.1 -1.7, with a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Sub Factor: Staffing Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates how the contractor identifies the skilled manpower needed for this requirement.

This requirement is met when the offeror’s offers clearly indicates the number of personnel projected for employment during the growing and non-growing season. How the personnel will be allocated among the tasks for each season and indicate any (if needed) “dual hatted” personnel. Indicate how the contractor will hire and retain skilled manpower with a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Factor 2: Proposed Mowing Schedule

Description: This subfactor evaluates how the contractor will schedule work in order to ensure compliance with the PWS.

This requirement is met when the offeror has clearly identified a plan on how the offeror will ensure all areas required in the PWS will be met in order to ensure compliance as well as meeting required timelines.

Factor 3: Mobilization Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates how the contractor will mobilize in order to start contract performance on time with proper equipment.

This requirement is met when the offeror’s offers includes a chronological outline from time of award until the contract start date. The length of time the contractor will need to assemble and coordinate all personnel and equipment to perform and meet the requirements as outlined in the PWS, with a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Factor 4: Mission Essential Plan

Description: Offeror shall describe how they intend to meet requirements of

DFARS 252.237-7024.

The requirement is met when the offeror describes how they will continue to perform the essential contractor services listed in PWS IAW Para 1.1 and 1.3.

Factor 5: Financial Worksheet

Description: Offeror shall submit Financial Worksheet Attachment 06. This will ensure offerors are financially capable or able to have access to the funds needed in order to mobilize with proper equipment and have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them.

Factor 6: Small Business Commitment

Description: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Small Business Commitment Document (SBCD) to ensure it demonstrates an adequate approach to maximizing small business participation. This evaluation applies to all offerors. The Government will assign a single rating of "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" for this factor.

Standard for an "Acceptable" Rating: To be rated "Acceptable," the offeror's submitted SBCD must meet all of the following standards:

The document contains all required elements as defined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, including a description of subcontracting opportunities

The document includes proposed targets that are realistic in comparison with the minimum Government targets listed in para 5.

Overall Rating. A offers must meet all standards listed above to receive a rating of "Acceptable" for this factor. Failure to meet any one of these standards will result in the offers being rated "Unacceptable".

i. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical capability offers identified above. The Government’s evaluation team shall evaluate overall technical capability on an Acceptable/Unacceptable/Outstanding basis. All areas of the Technical Capability offers must be determined either “Acceptable” using the descriptions below for the Technical Capability offers to receive an “Acceptable” or “Outstanding” rating. If any of the areas are determined to be “Unacceptable”, the Technical Capability offers will receive an Unacceptable rating.

ii. Technical Capability Rating. The technical capability rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirements. Each technical capability area will receive one of the ratings described below. The focus of the technical rating is to identify if the contractor has an adequate approach and understanding of the requirement. This rating will be based on the Government’s technical knowledge and historical data.

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Outstanding The proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. The approach has a very low risk of unsuccessful performance.

Acceptable Offers meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirement.

Unacceptable Offers does not meet requirements and does not indicate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirement.

Past Performance

a. Past performance will be evaluated on recency and relevancy. Each offeror will receive an integrated overall Performance Confidence Rating. Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts.

b. For the purpose of this evaluation, “recent” is defined as performance occurring within the last three (3) years from the date of release of this solicitation. The following relevancy definitions apply to each citation reviewed:

Rating Definition

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

c. The Government will use past performance information submitted by the offerors’ references, other sources such as other federal government offices, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), and private and commercial sources. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Relevancy is defined above. Consideration will be given to whether the past performance information is applicable to the prime contractor, teaming partners, and/or joint venture actually performing that part of the requirement. This information may include efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to the current effort.

i. Where the relevant past and present performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts, or performance evaluations, to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. If the offeror clearly demonstrates management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified, this may allow the offeror to be rated higher than might otherwise be indicated.

ii. The Government will evaluate/assess all past performance information, positive and negative. Offerors will be offered the opportunity to respond to negative past performance reports if they had not had the opportunity to do so previously. An offeror without a record of relevant past performance will receive a past performance rating of “Unknown Confidence.”

d. Each offeror will be assessed a Performance Confidence Rating described below, taking into account the recency, relevancy, and quality of each citation reviewed:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Contractor Responsibility. Prior to award, a responsibility determination will be made as described in FAR Part 9.

a. In accordance with FAR Part 9, the Government will make a determination of contractor responsibility prior to awarding a contract. The Government's determination of responsibility will include, but is not limited to, a review of the offeror's financial resources, technical skills, and record of integrity and business ethics.

i. Small Business Subcontracting Plan: As a key element of responsibility for Other Than Small Business offerors, an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan is a prerequisite for award.

b. In accordance with FAR 19.702, the apparent successful offeror, if it is an Other Than Small Business, must negotiate a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that is acceptable to the Contracting Officer prior to award.

c. The plan itself will not be a comparative evaluation factor. However, failure to negotiate an acceptable plan in a timely manner after selection will result in the offeror being determined nonresponsible and therefore ineligible for award.

d. The Government's subcontracting targets for this acquisition are as follows:

Total Small Business 10% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5% Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) 3% HUBZone Small Business 0.5% Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) 0.5% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB)

1%

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of Provision Addendum)